SAZ: it stands for W3C technical plenary. It'd be
great to have a RDWG. It's in Santa Clara, CA. It'd be a good opportunity to
share thought with other groups like mobile.
... to know what they are up to. We can also feedback them and the other way
around.
... downside is it is far away but it'll be highly benefitial.
... shall we have a survey to know tentative availability?

SH: there is a W3C workshop going on. There might
be some accessibility issues going on. SAZ and I and coordination group think
we could publish something on behalf of RDWG.
... +1 if the workshop is a good idea to put a short abstract on behalf of
RDWG?

SAZ: 2 weeks ago we discussed the augmented
reality item of the wiki. We had a discussion about it
... we though about having a more structured wiki entry by breaking up things
into smaller pieces.
... it seems relevant so we could have a structured discussion within the
group.
... based on that we could put a position paper on behalf of the workshop.
Simon and I could convey the outcomes of the discussion by highlighting the
accessibility challenges and the links to other groups.
... we have the opportunity to very early on put feedback on that.

KM: I agree that we have several problems on the
scope of the topic. I'm happy to discuss and work on this again and put it as a
structured discussion.

SH: expressions of interest have to be submitted
by the 25 of April, although nothing is said about the date of full papers
... is anybody willing to lead the effort?

SAZ: it says that if you want to present you need
to put a position paper by the 25 of April.

SH: there are some actions we can divide.

SAZ: @KM, would you be interested in creating a
catalogue item in the Wiki?
... and have a discussion between now and the deadline

<klaus> fine with me

SAZ: there are 3 pieces to be done, which they
don't have to be necessarily be done by the same person

SH: considering the timeline, it's going to be
unlikely that I can put anything substantial
... we could put something together as extracted from the wiki

SAZ: we could talk about the challenges we
encounter with regard to the WoT
... the UI accessibility is one aspect; another aspect is the configuration
and protocols.
... also the accessibility to data through APIs by assistive tech
... the settings aspect: there's is software update and the initial
configuration is reset
... the number of situations in which those devices are web enabled and pose
an accessibility problem, even if, ironically opens lots of opportunities to
people with disabilities
... we could put some use cases

SH: it's a good way of thinking about it. Perhaps
these things deserve a symposium. If we could put something sensible...
... we need to realise what the deadlines are for this. If by next week we
cannot complete the topic and we don't have the people we have to write a
line
... we need 2.5 or 3 weeks to complete

<klaus> yes!

SAZ: @KM, would you be able to have a wiki item
by the next week?
... we could have some side discussions with people at W4a

SAZ: I have a side comment on the metrics note
which is becoming very relevant.
... I haven't made progress on the actual work here. We are having a
discussion on the evaluation working group
... we haven't get onto the discussion about which the best metric is
... people fear that metrics would dilute accessibility
... as measurements might be too tolerant
... we haven't identified the perfect metrics
... on the other hand people acknowledge of the benefits for high level
managers, being tolerant to errors is also a good side, etc
... this discussion is here again

MV: as long as we know the weaknesses and
strengths about metrics --which the note does-- that's fine

SAZ: indeed there are opposing views, people in
the evaluation methodology are viewing it
... I would love this discussion to continues
... RDWG could really serve in having this dialogue

SH: what does this mean about the note?

SAZ: this is having higher priority now.

MV: I wonder if this opposing views are delaying
the publication of the note

SAZ: on the WoT we had some suggestions too..once
we have more stable items we can run a survey and select the one which is more
appropriate
... it was a good start, there were a couple of comments on the minutes

KM: I'll try to address these comments.

SH: any other business?
... I'll send an email about the WoT workshop

SAZ: there is no restriction if you want to
submit your own paper although we also want to have a coordinated submission